> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:28:47 +0100 > From: peter <p2.e...@gmail.com> > > Not only does Langutils not work (although it can seem to load OK in > some contexts), but it can be tricky to unpick such as > langutils-tokenize::tokenize-stream with its many layers of macro > and readtable optimizations.
Googling leads straight to http://common-lisp.net/project/langutils/ and thence to langutils-de...@common-lisp.net, which might be a good place to ask about this. > It doesn't seem so obvious as to where to find who might have > unpicked this already. Or find documentation behind a system and its > design intent. I.e. although perhaps nothing should be in Quicklisp > unless pure and solid, it can be quite a goose chase to try to hunt > down remedies when that does not seem the case. I don't _think_ it's Quicklisp's concern to ensure how well things work, only that loading one doesn't break another. Some QL libraries come with test-suites, and others do not. But I agree that library quality / support are important parts of library discovery: if you don't know which ones are generally thought of as good, or which ones have an active support network, how can you ever choose between them? Solving the library discovery problem is probably rather people-intensive, which I imagine is why nobody's done it. I'm told other languages suffer from this too. - nick _______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
